The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Make Whole, Not War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XIX
If the nhl is going to pay the make whole agreement, then the nhl will want to keep the contract stipulations in their proposal. With only minor changes. Will the nhlpa accept that? Or are they really greedy ****s and want the entire soup kitchen?
If the nhl is going to pay the make whole agreement, then the nhl will want to keep the contract stipulations in their proposal. With only minor changes. Will the nhlpa accept that? Or are they really greedy ****s and want the entire soup kitchen?
The PA have not negotiated at all off of the NHL's proposal. I'd bet there is a lot of wiggle room in a lot of areas, as along as the PA accepts linkage.
Agent Walsh is going crazy in classifying the new 'make whole' concession as more or less pure PR to soften the bitter fallout by fans due to the cancellation of the WC today. He might be right regarding they leaked it for having some good news, too, but i also think that Walsh is pure PA propaganda guy who likely doesn't know any more detail than anyone (any player) else. So, we will see if this new idea has legs or is indeed what Walsh thinks: PR on a sad day for hockey.
Just heard Doug Mclean talking on Team 1040. Was saying that the league was offering the players the option of walking away from an Arbitration settlement if they didn't like it, so Fehr and company went and asked a player who currently doesn't even have a contract and came back and said that doesn't work for us.
Since posters keep throwing the term "concessions" about, let's make sure we understand what the term means. It refers to alterations of the current agreement in the other side's favour. Arguing that the players haven't made any concessions while the owners have is just factually incorrect. What has happened is the owners have demanded concessions from the players and have, as time has worn on, moderated those demands.
I suspect that if a deal is to be reached, it will mostly be, relative to th last agreement, in the favour of the owners and to the detriment of the players. It will be the players who will have made concessions before this thing is done.
Just heard Doug Mclean talking on Team 1040. Was saying that the league was offering the players the option of walking away from an Arbitration settlement if they didn't like it, so Fehr and company went and asked a player who currently doesn't even have a contract and came back and said that doesn't work for us.
I wonder who the player was. That's a really strange way to do business.
Since posters keep throwing the term "concessions" about, let's make sure we understand what the term means. It refers to alterations of the current agreement in the other side's favour. Arguing that the players haven't made any concessions while the owners have is just factually incorrect. What has happened is the owners have demanded concessions from the players and have, as time has worn on, moderated those demands.
I suspect that if a deal is to be reached, it will mostly be, relative to th last agreement, in the favour of the owners and to the detriment of the players. It will be the players who will have made concessions before this thing is done.
You are wrong. They had a share of 57 percent in the last deal, yes. But that doesn't mean they are entitled to that number as a starting point again. (We are not talking 'whole' contracts here, because that's a point i think is legit for the players).
Since posters keep throwing the term "concessions" about, let's make sure we understand what the term means. It refers to alterations of the current agreement in the other side's favour. Arguing that the players haven't made any concessions while the owners have is just factually incorrect. What has happened is the owners have demanded concessions from the players and have, as time has worn on, moderated those demands.
I suspect that if a deal is to be reached, it will mostly be, relative to th last agreement, in the favour of the owners and to the detriment of the players. It will be the players who will have made concessions before this thing is done.
There is no current agreement. The last CBA is expired and it's time to negotiate a new one.
Definition of concession: "something done or agreed to usually grudgingly in order to reach an agreement or improve a situation."
You are wrong. They had a share of 57 percent in the last deal, yes. But that doesn't mean they are entitled to that number as a starting point again. (We are not talking 'whole' contracts here, because that's a point i think is legit for the players).
That is factually incorrect. They are entitled to that number as a starting point because it was negotiated in the previous agreement just as much as the owners being entitled to a salary cap. Is that logic going to lead to a mutually beneficial agreement between owners and players that gets hockey back on the ice? You decide.
Now what you and others with the same opinion fail to realize is that we're here because the owners made a miscalculation in the previous CBA. Not the players. The owners.
The owners were so fixed on a salary cap last time (and they got it) that they overlooked the math. With their number of 43%, even with record revenues of $3.3B, they seemingly didn't have enough money to manage their businesses. It was a complete miscalculation on their part. Yet they still spend $100m+ for 10+ years in contracts? Is that smart to you?
Now they want to correct that mistake. The players are willing to play ball but the owners previously asked them to take a 24% rollback, now want a 12% immediate reduction in player salaries. The players are saying for what?
The owners messed up the calculation. The players are willing to give back. What are the owners willing to concede for the players to give back another 12%? This potential make whole concession may be the start.
But the illogical arguments you guys are posing creates a lot of misinformation.
"They players aren't entitled to 57% as a starting point" is a completely irrelevant argument in any salary-cap based proposal. Enough of it already.
That is factually incorrect. They are entitled to that number as a starting point because it was negotiated in the previous agreement just as much as the owners being entitled to a salary cap. Is that logic going to lead to a mutually beneficial agreement between owners and players that gets hockey back on the ice? You decide.
Now what you and others with the same opinion fail to realize is that we're here because the owners made a miscalculation in the previous CBA. Not the players. The owners.
The owners were so fixed on a salary cap last time (and they got it) that they overlooked the math. With their number of 43%, even with record revenues of $3.3B, they seemingly didn't have enough money to manage their businesses. It was a complete miscalculation on their part. Yet they still spend $100m+ for 10+ years in contracts? Is that smart to you?
Now they want to correct that mistake. The players are willing to play ball but the owners previously asked them to take a 24% rollback, now want a 12% immediate reduction in player salaries. The players are saying for what?
The owners messed up the calculation. The players are willing to give back. What are the owners willing to concede for the players to give back another 12%? This potential make whole concession may be the start.
But the illogical arguments you guys are posing creates a lot of misinformation.
"They players aren't entitled to 57% as a starting point" is a completely irrelevant argument in any salary-cap based proposal. Enough of it already.
You would be right if we would be talking about a hard cap which stays the same over the whole agreement. But it's not the case. By the way: No, for sure the owners are not entitled a salary cap. It's the players who offered to work with the old agreement for the time being, not the owners. I don't care if the owners did 'miscalculation' in 2005 or the PA negotiated pretty well in a position of weakness.
No one is entitled anything. That's why a 50-50 share in a salary cap world both sides agree on is the best solution. With all current contracts honoured through the owners' share if you want.
Darren Dreger is such an embarrassment. This is listed as his story on the tsn website. He's obviously being spun by the owners on the same day they cancel the Winter Classic. It's utterly transparent american corporate PR garbage. I'm stunned Dreger's bosses let him "report" this bs.
Darren Dreger is such an embarrassment. This is listed as his story on the tsn website. He's obviously being spun by the owners on the same day they cancel the Winter Classic. It's utterly transparent american corporate PR garbage. I'm stunned Dreger's bosses let him "report" this bs.
I don't understand the outrage. The owners softened their position considerably and leaked it to the media...
Darren Dreger is such an embarrassment. This is listed as his story on the tsn website. He's obviously being spun by the owners on the same day they cancel the Winter Classic. It's utterly transparent american corporate PR garbage. I'm stunned Dreger's bosses let him "report" this bs.
So you know the details of the new development? Share them please.
You would be right if we would be talking about a hard cap which stays the same over the whole agreement. But it's not the case. By the way: No, for sure the owners are not entitled a salary cap. It's the players who offered to work with the old agreement for the time being, not the owners. I don't care if the owners did 'miscalculation' in 2005 or the PA negotiated pretty well in a position of weakness.
No one is entitled anything. That's why a 50-50 share in a salary cap world both sides agree on is the best solution. With all current contracts honoured through the owners' share if you want.
By all means with your logic please suggest both sides to start from scratch and we'll see hockey in 3 years when they "remake" the league. We all know that's not going to happen so enough with this this side isn't entitled to A and the other side isn't entitled to B. Nobody's entitled to anything but they do it for the good of the game. That should be obvious and shouldn't form the basis of any argument.
Whether it's a hard or soft cap is irrelevant. The owners got a cap, end of story.
People think they only leaked it because of the public outrage of the WC cancellation.
Maybe they did. So what? It's still a major step toward resolving the PA's sticking point over the last offer.
The ball is very squarely the players' court right now. If they really want an agreement, it's time for them to pony up and make a constructive response.
The vague description that the owners would eat (some of?) the make-whole payments sound like a big concession. But who knows how accurate that is. And if it is accurate, then maybe we'll see how much the PA had planned to negotiate on entry-level, RFA, and UFA contracts. Perhaps they were planning on digging in on those items too.
